h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

In this instance, their "bias" is precisely why they should be listened to on this point!

Vicky

Effers, the justice system favours people with money, articulate people, and people who appear 'normal' (for fairly obvious reasons). People with ongoing mental health problems are statistically likely to be poor, have trouble articulating themselves and not appear 'normal' once they get to a point of ending up in court. Plus all those things contribute to them being more likely to commit a crime in the first place.

I know someone who had escaped from a psych ward and run away. They broke into a house that night because they were very cold and it was snowing. The police wanted to charge them with breaking and entering and theft (they ate some food) despite the owner not wanting them to be charged. I won't go into the full story except to say that there is alot of bullshit within all parts of society when it comes to people who aren't behaving as authorities think they should.

Once people have been sectioned and the police know about it they are more likely to assume that the mental person has done something wrong.

Of course if you're really ill in NZ and lose the plot and are released from a locked ward because of system failures then the police tend to shoot you saving you the trouble of worrying about going to court and having to appear normal.

Needless to say I am talking about those who are badly off. There are of course many people with mental health issues who function well or highly and don't come into contact with the justice system.

A lot of bullshit ?

They broke into someone's house ! Did they use the to call the police ? Did they ask for help ?

No - they damaged someones house and stole their food.

People in prison have been found guilty of a crime - contrary to your views on this subject the majority of people in jail have broken the law.

Whilst I think there are ridiculous ammounts of people in jail, many for 'crimes' that should never lead to a jail sentence, there are more who have chosen to put their personal requirements above those of other members of society. As such they have proved themselves incapable of making the sort of judgements that are required to vote.

Indeed I think there may be an argument for never allowing violent criminals to vote again, or at least anyone under a life sentence.

"All sorts of people vote according to an agenda that I think is crap." - Indeed, but democracy is about allowing other people to have opinions.

Unbelievably there are countries in this modern age who run their country according to religious laws.

McKay, the person I was talking about was in a severely altered mental state at that point in their lives. That's why they were in a psyche ward in the first place. They were in the country, there was a real possibility that they could have died from exposure because no-one knew where they were and wouldn't have found them if they'd stayed out. I would have broken into someone's house and eaten food in those circumstances, and I would have no problem with someone breaking into my house and eating my food in that situation either. And like I said it was the police not the owner that wanted charges pressed. The ill person apologised to the owner, paid for the broken window and food.

How is it going to help the ill person or society if that person gets a criminal record for doing something as necessary as finding shelter and food?

Quite frankly, its attitudes like yours that make recovery from mental illness so difficult. As hard a time as the person whose story I told is having, it will be much much worse if they end up in the justice system. That's a real downward spiral for someone in that situation.

You can talk about personal responsibility til the cows come home, but for many people there are simply things outside of their control. Pity they can't all be as perfect at controllling their world as you are.

>>"All sorts of people vote according to an agenda that I think is crap." - Indeed, but democracy is about allowing other people to have opinions.<<

Except people in prison. You still haven't said why. Not contributing to society isn't enough otherwise we'd exclude all people like that.

"Pity they can't all be as perfect at controllling their world as you are."

I shall take this opportunity to say "Up yours." You know nothing of my situation and history apart from what I choose to reveal.

Maybe - just maybe - my opinions are based upon personal experience of mental problems and based upon a wish for greater recognition of personal responsibility, rather than the litany excuses turned out nowadays where everything is some sort of illness.

Drink too much - you're an alcoholic. Eat too much - you're food dependant. Take drugs - you're addicted. Instead of admiring those who rise above their problems we give creedance to pampered egos staggering from rehabilitation clinic to councillor.

"You still haven't said why. Not contributing to society isn't enough otherwise we'd exclude all people like that."

You must have missed me saying "People in prison have been found guilty of a crime - contrary to your views on this subject the majority of people in jail have broken the law.

Whilst I think there are ridiculous ammounts of people in jail, many for 'crimes' that should never lead to a jail sentence, there are more who have chosen to put their personal requirements above those of other members of society. As such they have proved themselves incapable of making the sort of judgements that are required to vote."

I did read that bit McKay, and agree with it to some extent. But my point is that there are alot of people who "have chosen to put their personal requirements above those of other members of society" but aren't in prison, so why stop prisoners from voting? Unless you agree with SWL that the ones in prison are stupid enough to have been caught so don't deserve to vote.

I'm not trying to have a go at you there, I simply don't get why prisoners should be excluded, beyond the belief that people in prison are somehow inherently bad compared to those who are not.


*

>>You know nothing of my situation and history apart from what I choose to reveal.

Maybe - just maybe - my opinions are based upon personal experience of mental problems and based upon a wish for greater recognition of personal responsibility, rather than the litany excuses turned out nowadays where everything is some sort of illness. <<

I wasn't thinking of your personal life McKay, but more the opinions you post here. I don't dismiss people's personal experiences though, they count for alot, and I don't assume I know that much about anyone online. However I do have a hard time with people who say I pulled myself up with my bootstraps so everyone else can too.

I also dislike the implication that because I think there is collective responsibility that means I think there is no individual responsibility. I don't, I think that there is both, and I bring up the collective thing in response to ideas that all individuals are totally responsible for everything that happens in their lives.

So my point stands. The justice system disadvantages poor people, and people with mental illness.


>>
Drink too much - you're an alcoholic. Eat too much - you're food dependant. Take drugs - you're addicted. Instead of admiring those who rise above their problems we give creedance to pampered egos staggering from rehabilitation clinic to councillor.
<<

Yeah, those crack babies made really bad personal life choices, eh?

Good to see that reports of the Forums demise...ect...ect...


Just two points as I dont have much time.

Prisoners *would* vote for the reintroduction of the death penalty. Us convicts have a very trenchant moral code it might not match with the mythic one that exists in the minds of "the moral majority" but it is very clear about what should happen to the owrst of criminals.



"Drink too much - you're an alcoholic. Eat too much - you're food dependant. Take drugs - you're addicted. Instead of admiring those who rise above their problems we give creedance to pampered egos staggering from rehabilitation clinic to councillor.
<<

Yeah, those crack babies made really bad personal life choices, eh?

Accepting the difficulties that some people encounter in life as mittigating circumstnces is not mutualy exclusive with praising or holding up as a positive example those who have somehow managed to overcome those same difficulties.

one love

I am also intrigued to know who the "We" is in the original question.

McKay, the problem with denying people the vote for any reason is that it is based on a misunderstanding of democracy. The idea of democracy is that if everyone has the vote, then it makes it much less likely that one group of people will get systematically exploited by the system. This doesn't always work even in a democracy (cf. South Africa just before apartheid), but it's the best way of stopping it that anyone has come up with so far. When you take the vote away from someone, you basically license the government to abuse and exploit them as much as they can - there's no reason for them not to given that they can't retaliate with their votes. Denying votes to people in prison is a particularly bad thing to do because it gives the politicians the (indirect) power to deny votes to whomever they choose, and gives them a strong incentive to do so. If you know that one group of people is less likely to vote for you than another, you've got an incentive to create new laws that make it more likely that people in that group will go to prison, taking them out of the voting pool and increasing your percentage of the vote. I think you could make a case that this is actually happening in the US right now.

Good points.

<> ignore them and exploit them. As Thatcher did to Scotland in the 80s.

This also leads directly to the current situation of Labour diverting resources to areas with a high number of Labour voters. And the Tories did it before them too. Both parties abuse their power to benefit their core vote. As the saying goes "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always rely on the support of Paul".

So what's so different about denying criminals a say in government?

SWL: "So what's so different about denying criminals a say in government?"

Hep hem, because...

Me: "... it gives the politicians the (indirect) power to deny votes to whomever they choose, and gives them a strong incentive to do so."

SWL: "... As Thatcher did to Scotland in the 80s."

It's slightly different with regional issues because of the peculiarity of the way our electoral system works: you vote for (regional) MPs whose majority then selects the government. That means that there's no incentive not to exploit a region which is a safe seat for the opposing party. This wouldn't be the case for other electoral systems, so you can add it to the list of reasons for electoral reform.

"Both parties abuse their power to benefit their core vote."

Actually, I think this isn't the mechanism. Both parties abuse their power to exploit the core vote of their opponent (and to a lesser extent their own core vote oddly enough) in favour of the swing voter (which is why Brown's last budget increased taxes for the poor and the rich and decreased them for those in the middle). 'Core vote' means they won't stop voting for you, it's the swing voters you need to worry about.

Thanks a lot everyone normally a few new ideas come my way but Ive genuinely had my whole set of thoughts that I started off with changed by the things Ive read, well some of them.

Another thing I'm not sure if mentioned, is taht in any state of affairs where you start saying group 'X' or 'y' can't vote because..... Can be (viewed at least) as being quite dangerous as regaards when this was previous the case with, E.G., only the rich (by vertue of land ownership) being eligable to vote, or not having women vote or not letting blacks vote etc... slippary slope and all that kinda stuff I guess... I've met a lot of bonkers/mad/insaine/mentall ill peop[le and a lot of not mentally ill people, and half the time its hard to tell which are which and saying one shoudln't ahve the right to vote isn't necessarily just cause they're mentall ill, or not... if that makes sense Actually some of my sainest friends are insane.

What an interesting debate!

Just a quick thought from me at the moment. To exclude any group from the vote in a democratic society is to suggest that they are not part of that society. Prisoners, the mentally ill in hospital, old folks in nursing/residential care etc. are part of society which is surely made up of all these diverse parts and more than the sum of them.

One cannot argue that a democratic society with a developed justice system that includes punishment of transgressors in state funded facilities and a range of services for the sick and infirm funded by society, does not recognise these groups as part of the whole we recognise as society.

To begin the process of disenfranchising parts of society is to begin the slide down the slippery slope that ends with totalitarian dictatorship.

Logan's Run anyone?

turvy

1) People in prison, be they "inherently" good or bad, have broken a contract with their country - or at least it has been agreed that they have. Why should they derive the benefits of that contract, if they haven't honored their part of the bargain?

2) what's to keep people in prison from voting to make their crimes retroactively legal, and thus freeing themselves?

There's a world of difference between criminals, the mentally ill and the elderly.

Mentally ill is a matter of opinion in any case.

The elderly have far more to offer society through their vote than anyone else. In the West we seem to have a fixation with youth that isn't really reflected elsewhere, where experience has value. Politicians in the UK particular appear to have an obsession with "new". So many things change not because they need to change, but because there's a shiny new idea to try.

As for criminals - are they part of society? In a sense, yes, of course. But they've acted against society by their criminal behaviour. Would taking away their right to vote make them feel disenfranchised? I find it hard to believe that being allowed to cast a vote every four years rates high in their problems to be honest. Taking away the right to vote is one of those "non-punishments" that are in vogue of course, so the Government would probably like it. Another smoke & mirrors policy with no substance.

>Mentally ill is a matter of opinion in any case.<

What do you mean by this statement, SWL?